200 yds -- Pistol -- "Gee Officer, I thought she was a deer...."

[zipspyder]

I'm still trying to figure out in what universe a woman walking 2 dogs looks like a deer?

[JERRYS.]

there are people that cant hit a deer at 100 yards with a rifle, and this moron hits a woman at 200 yards with a pistol? im not buying the story as reported just yet.

[GarandTd]

I don't care what color someone is wearing. People don't look like deer. I don't really see any plausible defense for this. I doubt that woman was crashing through heavy brush holding branches over her head. Probably in an open field. That guy rendering aid to his victim doesn't lessen the severity of his actions.

Also, while I believe this guy should go to jail for his stupidity, what on Earth does his economic standing or the values of property on the street he lives on have to do with any of this?

[Nathan]

I maybe an idiot and leave a lot of game in the field, but I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably. Hitting her in the pelvis would be a huge miss....


What else is going on here?

[Double Naught Spy]

Also, while I believe this guy should go to jail for his stupidity, what on Earth does his economic standing or the values of property on the street he lives on have to do with any of this?

Glad you brought up the notion of a defense, LOL. The statement was made that this event would bankrupt him. No doubt there will be legal fees. Plus, there is the looming possibility of a wrongful death lawsuit by the victim's family. So I looked at what I could find that would be relevant to the issues and that is the property value of the street where he resides. It would not appear that he would have much means to cover either a good lawyer or provide anything of significance in a wrongful death settlement, which is unfortunate for the victim's family.

I maybe an idiot and leave a lot of game in the field, but I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably. Hitting her in the pelvis would be a huge miss....


What else is going on here?

The guy was poaching. He was hunting after hours and apparently in a field where he did not have permission to hunt. You don't think somebody poaching is going to be all that concerned about clearly identified targets, legal deer, and shot repeatability, do you?

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

....all of what you said still makes what the shooter did illegal, regardless of what state you are talking about, since it was 40 minutes after sunset and he could not identify his target. Still makes him an idiot, a poacher and guilty of homicide.

I don't care about legal shooting hours in regards to the death. I wasn't addressing that.
The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.
I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.

[GarandTd]

He should pay with his freedom. I hate the sue happy world we live in. What exactly is the monetary value of a life? Is one worth more than another? Does any amount of money make up for loss of life? I experience alot of inner conflict when the $ signs start flying.

Double Naught, I get what you're saying relating to the legal costs of the aftermath of this senseless shooting.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by Nathan

... I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably.

That's too much common sense for many 'hunters'. Not to mention knowing what's behind the target, remaining stone cold sober while hunting, and following the rules.

[Double Naught Spy]

The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.

That it was not during legal shooting hours means the shooting was during the commission of a crime - poaching. Being after hours means it is low light shooting which further attests to the recklessness of what he was doing. That certainly may go a long way toward actual prosecution, or a higher level of prosecution, or a higher level of sentencing.

[44 AMP]

That it was not during legal shooting hours means the shooting was during the commission of a crime - poaching.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I think we don't have enough information at this time to "convict" him of poaching. He probably was, but its also possible he wasn't.

It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.

the shot would have been after legal hours, and a violation of law, but he MAY not have been poaching, by intent.

Until/unless more information about this becomes public, we simply don't KNOW very much about the details.

[Double Naught Spy]

It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.

Once sunset occurred, and he continued to hunt, then he was hunting illegally.

Given that poaching is the illegal hunting, killing, capturing, or taking of game in violation of law and given that law enforcement has reported that Jadlowski was hunting illegally after hours and that Jadlowski said he thought he was shooting at a deer, then I don't see how you could call it any other thing than poaching. Intent to be poaching isn't a prerequisite to poaching.

What he was doing beforehand really doesn't matter, sort of like if you are driving 55 in a 55 mph zone and having the speed limit drop to 30 and you continue to drive 55 and getting ticketed for it. You can say you didn't have the intent to be speeding, but that doesn't change the fact that you were speeding.

Regardless if you just want to call it "hunting illegally after hours" or "poaching," he was still engaging in an illegal act at the time Rosemary Billquist was shot by him.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

I don't care about legal shooting hours in regards to the death. I wasn't addressing that.
The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.
I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.

I don't care about legal shooting hours either. I was just addressing the fact that some folks are trying to put some of the blame on the victim and some are trying to find a valid reason of why he took the shot in the first place. I agree, even in daylight he broke a cardinal rule of hunter safety and he also broke the law by trespassing. The shooting after legal hours just digs his hole deeper.

As for the " grossly and factually incorrect " statements, I find it common that on these forums, folk's knowledge base of regulations and techniques outside their area is limited. For most folks, until the advent of the internet, unless you actively hunted an area, you generally had no way of really knowing the current local regs unless you had in your possession the local DNR/F&G regulation pamphlet. Now folks can Google local regs(and local home values) in a matter of milliseconds from the comfort of their home. I had to do the same before I knew what was legal in N.Y. Probably forget it in a few days tho, just like I'll forget the value of Trailer Houses in Sherman.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I think we don't have enough information at this time to "convict" him of poaching. He probably was, but its also possible he wasn't.
It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.

the shot would have been after legal hours, and a violation of law, but he MAY not have been poaching, by intent.

Shooting after hours and trespassing with the intent of shooting a deer = poaching to me, regardless of what your definition is. Not identifying your target and killing an innocent woman while doing so, makes you a stupid poacher. Intent may have a determination of whether it was manslaughter or murder, but it does not change the fact he was hunting deer illegally, which constitutes poaching, and committed a homicide while doing so. Again, why are so many folks trying to give some sort of validation/justification to the shooters actions?

[NoSecondBest]

I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.

Absolutely nothing incorrect about my statements, and correcting anyone who makes incorrect statements regarding safety isn't being snide. I was a handgun safety instructor in NY for many years and I've seen some people twist/interpret laws to suit themselves. I worked for many years as a safety manager (and had an exemplary record) and in 99.9% of all "accidents" the root cause can be directly laid on failure to follow safety rules. Most of the violators simply ignored them. A lot of adults don't like being corrected when they're wrong and act offended by it. When it comes to safety I correct them anyway. I'd rather someone's feathers than have someone get hurt.

[buck460XVR]

Upon "Googling" farther I discovered that the gun used was a "single shot handgun" which tells me it was probably a T.C. configuration in a rifle caliber, which makes for a 200 yard shot. According to the reports, the bullet went thru her pelvis and then continued out her back.....something most difficult for most straight-walled handgun cartridges after going 200 yards. A picture of the crime scene shows there was snow on the ground, making seeing a dark object moving in the distance easier, while still being difficult at best to identify. I'd bet, that the shooter knew there was a good chance of deer coming to the area after dark(since he was a neighbor of the victim) and was hoping the snow on the ground would assist him in taking a deer after hours. IMHO, poachers and those folks that "bend" the rules, especially those that shoot/hunt before and after legal hours do it more than once during their hunting career.

I know recently, many states have made handguns legal for hunting in areas where rifles have been restricted for safety reasons. I understand with dwindling hunter numbers and increasing deer herds in many areas, the principle behind it. Still, a long barreled handgun shooting a bottle-neck rifle cartridge is not any safer, IMHO, than shooting it in a short barreled carbine.

[mehavey]

YRGBSM....
great-outdoors/2017/11/26/hunter-shoots-[/url]pickup-truck-after-mistaking-it-for-deer
http://www.foxnews.com/great-outdoor...olice-say.html
Connection to this string ?
Same western NY area.

[Double Naught Spy]

Coincidence. The shooter of the deer truck was from Ohio, not a local. He did manage to kill the truck. Also like Jadlowski, he was hunting illegally as he shot across a roadway. He poached the truck he misidentified as a deer. Strangely, the brown truck was not wearing hunter orange at the time it was shot.

The hunter was charged with reckless endangerment and discharging a firearm across a roadway. http://www.erienewsnow.com/story/369...utauqua-county

[Rachen]

The shooter better have the book thrown at him in this case. First of all, by not abiding by legal shooting times and distances, he is already putting the public in peril. And what he did was absolutely unacceptable, no matter what time of day it was. I have shot competitively on terrain where there are a lot of vegetation cover and obstructions as well as fog and wind (handicap modes) and I sure can still tell the difference between targets, animals, plants and other things at extended ranges. If I can't tell, well, there is a thing called "Range is COLD" while we wait for the situation to clear.

This "I thought him/her/it was a deer" is getting REALLY old and is making me seriously angry. It is about time we start making an example out of those who are blatantly endangering the public due to their lack of regard for basic safety and common sense.

My father-in-law told me that he was hunting in Pennsylvania with some buddies. They were on one side of a creek. A guy on the other side took a shot at them at a distance. They yelled and screamed. He took another shot. So they fired a volley towards him (not at him). Then he got the point. People can be idiots.

This guy should go to jail for a long time.

THAT, and the earlier post about how hunters in WI would shoot at buildings out of frustration. Wait. What in the serious ****? What is this? Are we having to start worrying about Madec types (Deathwatch, by Robb White), while we are trying to enjoy the great outdoors? Are we going to have to have a thread about defensive pistol carrying while hiking/camping, not as defense against drug addicts and robbers, but now, psychos masquerading as hunters?

[Double Naught Spy]

Are we going to have to have a thread about defensive pistol carrying while hiking/camping, not as defense against drug addicts and robbers, but now, psychos masquerading as hunters?

We sort of had that thread. You are behind on your reading.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...t=vang+hunters

Vang was convicted, BTW.

[pkevinb]

This happened about 35 miles from me, and it was on the local news tonight that he has been charged with manslaughter.

[Double Naught Spy]

http://www.post-journal.com/news/pag...ting-accident/

The Sherman man who shot and killed his neighbor in a hunting accident last week that made national headlines has been indicted on charges of second-degree manslaughter and hunting after hours.

So, he is charged with a poaching offense...and second degree manslaughter.

[Evan Thomas]

That's second degree manslaughter, not murder, DNS -- a lesser charge by quite a bit.

[Double Naught Spy]

Thanks, I will change my post.

[gwpercle]

Time of day , how dark or light is irrelevant, he violated rule #1 of hunting safety ...make sure of your target. If it was high noon and in broad daylight you have to be sure of what you're shooting.
"I thought she was a deer" isn't a legal defense in my state .

[Double Naught Spy]

It may be very relevant when it comes to his sentencing, particularly that he was breaking the law at the time.

[44 AMP]

"I thought she was a deer" isn't a legal defense in my state .

I don't think its a defense in any state. But it is an explanation, which can influence whether or not, and which charges can be brought.

IF it is believed...

In reality, there are only two possibilities, he intended to shoot a person, in which case it is some degree of murder, or he did not intend to shoot a person, but did, in which case, it's some degree of manslaughter.

and it seems the authorities are going with a manslaughter charge.